<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2009 (5) TMI 12 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33416</link>
    <description>Imported goods must be valued under section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 on the price ordinarily prevailing at the time and place of importation. Transaction value is acceptable only if it reflects the true price and satisfies statutory conditions; where the proper officer has reason to doubt the declared value, Rule 10A permits rejection and use of alternative methods. The claimed contract price was unsupported by original import documents, while contemporaneous market materials and comparable imports indicated a substantially higher real value. The declared transaction value was therefore rejected and the enhanced assessable value fixed by the customs authorities was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Dec 2013 18:40:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=72048" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (5) TMI 12 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33416</link>
      <description>Imported goods must be valued under section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 on the price ordinarily prevailing at the time and place of importation. Transaction value is acceptable only if it reflects the true price and satisfies statutory conditions; where the proper officer has reason to doubt the declared value, Rule 10A permits rejection and use of alternative methods. The claimed contract price was unsupported by original import documents, while contemporaneous market materials and comparable imports indicated a substantially higher real value. The declared transaction value was therefore rejected and the enhanced assessable value fixed by the customs authorities was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33416</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>